Evolution Is Not Atheism

[JohnR7]

Today at 01:34 AM Cantuar said this in Post #54

Oh, wasn't it you who said that the CofE bishops who accepted evolution were traitors?

I am sure from the perspective of some they are bennedict arnold's, rotten to the core, hang 'em all.

 

[Arikay]

hehe.

Well, ive read all about your Vampiric Christian lies, so I figure people can do the same with the scientific theory of evolution.

Today at 11:15 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #59



Why would anyone knowingly want to read about evolution. Why would they want to subject themselves to communist lies?

 

[gladiatrix]

Today at 02:15 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #59
Why would anyone knowingly want to read about evolution.

To find out what it is all about, so that I could argue about it from an informed standpoint. The fact that I understand a concept is in no way a COMPULSION to accept it.

The fact that you refuse to study the subject on its own turf is evidence that you are simply afraid that you don't have enough to back up your POV. If you were really as confident that you had the truth (armor of God, etc., etc., etc.), you wouldn't be so squeamish.

Why would they want to subject themselves to communist lies?

And this is relevant, how???

Besides just because one is a communist doesn't automatically mean that one lies. This is also an example of a fallacy known as "poisoning the well". This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. The point is that the unfavorable information about the person (a communist who may or may not be an evil communist) does NOT mean that the information presented isn't true. For instance if Ted Bundy was the discoverer of a cure for cancer, the fact that he was also a serial murder would not in any way mean that his discovery was not valid.

Furthermore, this also looks like an attempt at yet another cheap shot...that of guilt by association (communists are all lying evil atheists who believe in evolution, therefore evolution is the evil and an untruth). Communism and evolution don't go hand-in hand, but John seems to want us to think so.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Today at 11:15 PM JohnR7 said this in Post #59



Why would anyone knowingly want to read about evolution. Why would they want to subject themselves to communist lies?

 

Communist lies? Come on now John, you're taking this too far.

We were taught basic evolutionary theory in my Catholic highschool. It was an accepted scientific theory even back then.

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 03:19 PM gladiatrix said this in Post #60



When all else fails, run and hid your God in the Gaps (what we don't know...yet!)..

Intelligent Design is supposed to be "proof" that God exists (let's not kid ourselve here, we all know that IDists and you mean the Christian God, not just some anonymous, generic, Creative Force). However, to "prove" that there is such a thing AS intelligent design, one must first assume that a Creator, acting as an Intelligent Designer, exists. ID is NOT a logically consistent, reasonable theory because one escaped this paradox simply defining the primordial creator as being omnipotent and uncaused (back to the old cosomological argument, something that IDists like William Craig and Johnson do all the time in whatever failed version they try to drag up). That is a case of circular reasoning based on special pleading.

Special pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption (Ex. God is the omnipotent, uncaused cause and doesn't require an explanation or evidence).

It is a logical fallacy, because you require certain rules to apply to evolution that you do not require your "deity" to adhere to. Furthermore, IDists usually attribute characteristics to this "deity" whose existence they are trying to prove in the first place! (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, uncaused, various combos of these = The IDists' "omnimax" God, it's the Christian god as opposed to Allah, Vishnu, Cronos, Marduk, whatever).

It is also a case of "circular" reasoning aka "begging the question", because in your case to support the existance of a deity, one must assume the Intelligent designer is God in order to prove God exists! Worse yet, is the intellectually dishonest trick of trying to escape this trap (caught in the trap of "circularity") by trying to "plead" that God is the "transcendent, uncaused cause". PULLEEZE!!! With that kind of "logic" one can prove anything!

If your God indeed designed "creation", then He is one rotten ! What follows is just a very small list of "crappy" designs that are NOT explained by any Intelligent Designer, but ARE explained by evolution where new species are created by modifying older ones. Designs are not "optimal" (what one expects from an "omnimax" God), but "Rube Goldberg", ad hoc designs the arise from natural selection. The design "selected" is one that works. The one that works isn't always the "best" or "optimal" design.

Oolon's Big List of Suboptimal Design Warning, this is a one big, well-documented (many links) list! (not exhaustive, but most representative)

As you are on a Christian forum, I ask you to refrain from blasphemy. You can make your point without resorting to those sort of tactics.

"If your God indeed designed "creation", then He is one rotten ! What follows is just a very small list of "crappy" designs that are NOT explained by any Intelligent Designer, but ARE explained by evolution where new species are created by modifying older ones."

I am happy to discuss these matters with you, but ask that you show due respect in those discussions.

You fail to recognise the differences between the assumtions underpinning discussions on origins held by Creationists, and atheistic evolutionists.

Creationists recognise that there is a spiritual dimension to life, while atheists typically assert matter is all that matters. I believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and Ruler of all. I'm not selling you the teaching of Scripture as a quasi-scientific explanation of origins. I'm stating that it was supernatural. For me that is the only sensible way to describe how our universe came from nothing. As an atheist that is a big hurdle you must overcome.

I agree that those who seek to marry Christianity and evolution are not consistent in their interpretation of the evidence, but I am not one of them. Scripture plainly teaches that God didn't use evolution to create man, or the animals.

You are right, when I view the intelligence seen in creation around me, my heart spontaneously recognises a wonderful and powerful Creator. I pointed out the logical conclusions we draw from artifacts we find. Why not do the same with the evidence you see all around you.

 

[Cantuar]

I like to assume the best of people. I would expect that Lucaspa would abide by the rules of the forum, and would not act deceiptfully in this matter by either stating or implying something that is not true. Wouldn't you agree.

If you know what a person has said about what they're doing and why, then you don't need to make assumptions.

 

[Arikay]

Ive assumed that people would actually back up any claims that they made. but that has turned out un true too.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 09:17 PM Micaiah said this in Post #30

Unlike some of the people on this thread, many would be Christians have the insight to recognise that the evolutionists view of origins and the plain teaching of Scripture in Genesis are mutually exclusive. T

Biblical literalism on the method of creatin and the evidence that God left in His Creation about the method of creation are mutually exclusive.  It just means that your supposed "plain teaching of Scripture in Genesis" is wrong. 

Lucaspa has identified himself as a Christian who accepts the statements below.

Sorry, Micaiah, but I have been banned from the Christians Only section because the Moderators think I'm not a Christian. They have been removing my posts from that forum.  So once again you are violating the 9th commandment.

Lucaspa and others could share with us what they consider to be essential truths of Scripture, and the criteria they use to determine what is truth, and what is not truth.

I've done that several times in several threads.  You've always ignored it. Before I do it again here, Micaiah, I'd like some indication that you will pay attention and indicate that by a response, even if the response is simply an agreement.

- God made evrything, both seen and unseen.

Where does evolution deny this, Micaiah? I've asked this of you at least 3 times.  Do we get a response this time? Or do you quit the thread like you've done before?

- Jesus was born of a virgin.

Since there is no data to study today, science has no comment on that.

- Jesus died by crucifixion and rose from the dead after three days.

Ironically, it was you, the alledged Christian, that posted the atheist argument against this as though it was true.  That would make you not a Christian, wouldn't it, Micaiah?  Well, since we know you've violated the 9th commandment before, why not again?

- One day people will rise from the dead

Nothing for science to say about this one.

- On day Jesus will judge all prople

Again, outside the domain of science.

In judging the Creation story, theistic evolutionists TEV's choose to accept that the weight of scientific evidence contradicts the Genesis account and therefore ignore the plain teaching of Scripture on this matter.

They also pay attention the internal evidence of the Genesis text to know that it was never intended to be history.  It is you who ignore Scripture on this matter.

Athiests would argue that there is a great deal of evidence to refute the assertions made in the creed above.

But they wouldn't be correct.

If TEV's were consistent in their mode of interpretation, they would also reject these assertions of Scripture summarised in this creed.

They are being consistent by not rejecting them. The atheist argument about dead not rising that you posted as correct I refuted.  Of course, the more zealous moderators decided to remove that because they concluded I'm not a Christian. Even tho I was defending Christianity against your assault. Ironic, isn't it?

 

[Micaiah]

Lots of false accusations in this post. I ask you to be more careful about the allegations you make. Show me where I have stated that you are not a Christian, or that Christ did not rise from the dead.

Okay, so you know some of the essential truths of Scripture. Do you believe these truths, and if so, how do you know they are true? What criteria do you use to differentiate between these and other things taught in Scripture? You refuse to make a clear profession of faith, and that causes me to question your beliefs. You only have yourself to blame for being kicked off the forum. FYI, in one Scriptural passage, confessing Jesus as Lord is linked with salvation.

 

[gentu]

I think this thread is getting off topic! I agree that the theory of evolution is in no way atheism. Since scientific theories describe God's creation, I don't see how this could equate to atheism!

 

[Arikay]

I think this thread is getting into fun personal attacks instead of actual debate.

So um, yeah.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 02:55 AM Micaiah said this in Post #65 

I believe God is all knowing, all powerful, and Ruler of all.

I'm not selling you the teaching of Scripture as a quasi-scientific explanation of origins. I'm stating that it was supernatural.... Scripture plainly teaches that God didn't use evolution to create man, or the animals.

Contradiction. You are saying that Genesis is a completely accurate description of how the universe was created. That's a scientific theory.  It doesn't matter that God used supernatural mechanisms.  What matters is that God using those supernatural mechamisms would have left evidence we can study today.  It is that "evidence we can study today" that makes it scientific.  And why your "plain teaching of Scripture" was the  scientific theory of origins prior to 1800.

For me that is the only sensible way to describe how our universe came from nothing. As an atheist that is a big hurdle you must overcome.

There are several other hypotheses that are just as "sensible".  However, none of them has the data to eliminate all the other hypotheses; so each remains on the table as a possibility. If you choose to believe one of them (deity created), that is your personal choice and belief. Gladiatrix is equally justified in believing one of the others. 

I agree that those who seek to marry Christianity and evolution are not consistent in their interpretation of the evidence, but I am not one of them.

LOL!! In a sense, this is correct.  You simply ignore all evidence -- Biblical and extrabiblical -- you don't want.  So, you are not inconsistent with your "interpretation" of the evidence, but are inconsistent on what evidence you will accept.

 

[lucaspa]

14th March 2003 at 11:42 PM Cantuar said this in Post #45



Where did you get the notion that he's identifying himself as a Christian? Everything I've seen him post on the subject has said that he is not saying anything about having or not having a faith, religion, or whatever. I think he's probably trying to get people to judge what he writes on its own merit, free of the baggage that gets hung on people when they identify their faith position. I've seen a few cases where creationists have said flat out that atheists can't be trusted to tell the truth about anything or that some piece of obvious scientific or statistical nonsense must be true because it's being disseminated by a good Christian and Christians don't lie. Do you not see how this uncritcal acceptance of whatever "good Christian men" say can lead Christians to be duped if they don't bother to make even simple checks? If someone is making a scientific claim, there are scientific books and websites and journals out there where these claims can be checked. But, no, you prefer to believe or reject scientific statements based simply on the religion of the person saying them. Lucaspa's refusal to state his faith position means that people can't just accept or reject his scientific statements on that basis, they actually have to - horrors - take a bit of trouble and think about what he's saying.

Thank you. Someone who actually understood what I wrote.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 12:35 AM Micaiah said this in Post #47

In regards to Lucaspa, I not that he is now posting on the Christian forum for discussions on evolution and creation. I am sure he would resent and vigorously deny any implication that he is being deceiptful, and so I assume he is a Christain and embraces the statement of Christian beliefs required for this forum.

Micaiah, I posted very clearly that I was there because that creationists were doing their usual trick -- hiding from the evidence or contrary positions. 

I posted clearly that my presence was not to be considered evidence that I either was or was not a Christian.  The board monitor chose to interpret that as I was not and has removed my posts.

I find that ironic, since I was posting only from a Christian perspective.  You, a self-declared Christian, were posting atheist arguments as valid.  I guess the board monitors care for self declarations more than the content of posts.

So you have a safe zone where you can hide from me and propagate the heresy of creationism and Biblical literalism

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 01:28 AM Cantuar said this in Post #52



Well, that just shows what you get when you make sassumptions instead of reading what people actually say. He said in one post on that forum that his participation there doesn't mean that he's saying he's a Christian (or that he's saying he isn't). Maybe you should wander over there and look at it; I think it's on one of the two threads attached to the top of the forum.

Thank you.  Exactly right again.  Micaiah responded to that post, so we know he read it.  Understand it is something else again.

Micaiah seems fascinated with my personal beliefs.

Micaiah, why are you so eager now to attach me to Christianity?  You know that I propose that creationists really aren't the good guys but that creationism is not only heresy and apostasy, but is an attempt to destroy Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 01:31 AM Micaiah said this in Post #53

In Australia, we have a lot of conflicts about what aborigines call sacred sites. These sites may be protected or the aborigines can be compensated for use of the land. In a court of law, the artifacts from those sites would form important evidence for the case that this land was used by the aborigines anscestors. It could be a specially shaped stoned, or some paintings. The design in these artifacts implies a designer, and hence occupation by man. I've never heard any mining company argue that the artifacts came about by chance over a long period of time. All recognise the hand of a creator in the arrangements of rocks or the way in which those rocks were formed.

In other words, the existence of a designer is demonstrated by their creations. What is true of the aboriginal artifacts is true of our universe. I look at the universe inwhich we live and see clear evidence of a Creator.

So did Darwin.  What has that got to do with creationism?  What you are stating is the Argument from Design.  In that, biological organisms are alleged to be manufactured artifacts. 

However, in your example, there is no process at the sites that would shape the rocks into the shapes that they are in.  Therefore, looking at the rocks and the environment, we conclude the rocks are tools and artifacts.

The problem is that, looking at the universe, there are processes in the universe that will produce the entities in it. Gravity will produce galaxies, stars, and planets. Chemistry will produce life.  Natural selection will produce the designs in biological organisms.  Therefore it is scientifically invalid for you to reach the conclusion that the universe was manufactured/created.

You can believe that personally. But then it becomes a personal belief, not a universal.  Gladiatrix can look at the processes and decide they operate on their own and therefore believe there is no deity and the universe was not created.

Lewis Wildermuth (for one) can look at the processes and believe that they would not happen without God sustaining them, and therefore is a theistic evolutionist.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 02:15 AM JohnR7 said this in Post #59



Why would anyone knowingly want to read about evolution. Why would they want to subject themselves to communist lies? 

A new tactic, John? Trying to equate evolution with communism?

Besides all the other problems with this -- including that when Darwin proposed evolution the Paris commune of 1871 was still 12 years in the future and the politically conservative nature of such evolutionists as Herbert Spencer, Teilhard de Chardin, and others -- you have the problem that communism is dead. But there is more research, and data, on evolution than ever before in history.   Do the PubMed search for yourself and compare the number of articles on evolution since 1993 and before then. 

 

[Tau]

Today at 09:07 PM lucaspa said this in Post #77
A new tactic, John? Trying to equate evolution with communism?

I think he was joking, actually. Note the smilies.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 07:39 PM Micaiah said this in Post #69

Show me where I have stated that you are not a Christian, or that Christ did not rise from the dead.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/37449.html

"The scientific evidence clearly shows it is impossible for a person to die physically and then come back to life three days later. The doctors and scientists among us could confirm this is the case. Why then do those who believe that we should not accept the plain teaching of Scripture because it contradicts 'scientific' evidence, claim they believe the resurrection of Christ which also contradicts scientific evidence on this matter. If consistent, those who claim 'science' as the ultimate authority should drop the Christian label."

Micaiah, can a person be a Christian and accept evolution?  All your posts say "No". Therefore, try to follow this simpe logic:

Lucas accepts evolution.  Lucas can't be a Christian. Lucas isn't a Christian.

Now, do you want to deny your statements about the impossibility of accepting evolution and being Christian?  If not, you cannot deny the logical conclusions, either.


Okay, so you know some of the essential truths of Scripture. Do you believe these truths, and if so, how do you know they are true? What criteria do you use to differentiate between these and other things taught in Scripture? You refuse to make a clear profession of faith, and that causes me to question your beliefs.

Micaiah, even if I beleived them that doesn't mean I know they are true. Does it? How do you know they are true?  The Nicean Creed is a confession of belief, not knowledge.

I've already told you: you compare what is in Scripture to extrabiblical evidence.  If science conflicts with the Bible, then you know that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. That is the conclusion of Christians, not just my personal idea.  Demonstrated by the practice of Christians over the centuries. I've posted that quote several times, and you ignore it. Here it is again:
"If sound science appears to contradict the Bible, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the Bible that is at fault."  Christian Observer, 1832, pg. 437

FYI, in one Scriptural passage, confessing Jesus as Lord is linked with salvation.

Yes, that is one of the statements of the Nicean Creed. So?  Tell me where in descent with modification by natural selection says anything about that.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 08:09 PM gentu said this in Post #70

I think this thread is getting off topic! I agree that the theory of evolution is in no way atheism. Since scientific theories describe God's creation, I don't see how this could equate to atheism!

It doesn't.  However, the two opposite sides of the atheism vs theism debate want it to.

For the Biblical literalists, it's a logical mistake on their part.  I submit it is tied to a desire for personal power. They want to dictate societal behavior -- similar to what the Taliban tried to do -- and therefore Biblical literalism becomes a way of enforcing their will.  Should they ever gain political power, they want to use creationism to indoctrinate children in public schools.

For the militant atheists, it is the only way they can "prove" atheism.  Since the evidence is overwhelming for evolution and falsifies creationism, for them to wih the culture war they need to equate Christianity with creationism (so it can be falsified) and evolution with atheism.